Men and women are different, and so should be their marriage vows

Peter Jensen

Public promises ... marriages are founded on promises of lifelong, exclusive bonding.

Marriage really matters. Thank God we are talking about it. As Professor Patrick Parkinson said in these pages last week, marriage is ''by far the most stable, safe and nurturing relationship in which to raise children''. However, fewer people are choosing marriage as a way of relating to someone of the opposite sex and fewer people are nurturing children in a family with marriage at its heart.

I can understand that. Individualism leaves us with little reason to join our life to that of someone else. Apart from that, for many marriage has become an arena of suffering, exploitation and disappointment. We choose to bypass it. Yet I would say that we need to go back to biblical principles and understand, improve and support marriage rather than abandon it.

I freely admit that for me, the earthly title and vocation I cherish most is ''husband''. It all began with promises, and each day I try to live out the commitment I made. Marriage is not always easy and I know that for some it proves painfully impossible. But, mostly, making our promises before witnesses and trying to keep them is what works best.

Public promises make a marriage. Marriages are founded on promises of lifelong, exclusive bonding. Provided that the promises commit both man and woman in good times and in bad ''till death do us part'', and that both intend to relate only to each other, the promises are effective in creating the marriage. Husband and wife can certainly make identical promises.

Advertisement

But promises can reflect something even more profound. Since they unite not simply two people but a man and a woman - two different bodies for whom marriage holds different consequences, needs, expectations and emotions - the promises can express these differences, and traditionally have done so.

Many of our young people want to be ''wives and husbands'' rather than simply ''partners'' and in their weddings they come as ''bride and groom'' rather than simply two individuals. They believe that expressing these differences, including different responsibilities, makes for a better marriage.

Both kinds of promise are provided for in the Sydney Anglican diocese's proposed Prayer Book, which has been the subject of commentary this week.

There is nothing new in this - it is the same as the Australian Prayer Book which has been used for decades.

Where different promises are made, the man undertakes great responsibility and this is also the wording of the book, as it has always been. The biblical teaching is that the promise made voluntarily by the bride to submit to her husband is matched by the even more onerous obligation which the husband must undertake to act towards his wife as Christ has loved the church. The Bible says that this obligation is ultimately measured by the self-sacrifice of Christ in dying on the cross.

This is not an invitation to bossiness, let alone abuse. A husband who uses the wife's promise in this way stands condemned for betraying his own sworn obligations. The husband is to take responsibility for his wife and family in a Christ-like way. Her ''submission'' is her voluntary acceptance of this pattern of living together, her glad recognition that this is what he intends to bring to the marriage and that it is for her good, his good and the good of children born to them. She is going to accept him as a man who has chosen the self-discipline and commitment of marriage for her sake and for their children. At a time when women rightly complain that they cannot get men to commit, here is a pattern which demands real commitment all the way.

Secular views of marriage are driven by a destructive individualism and libertarianism. This philosophy is inconsistent with the reality of long-term relationships such as marriage and family life.

Referring to ''partners'' rather than husband or wife gives no special challenge to the man to demonstrate the masculine qualities which he brings to a marriage.

Men have to accept the limitations imposed by a commitment to marry. Both husband and wife must exercise self-control and the acceptance of boundaries, although in ways which are somewhat distinctive. My greatest interest in the draft service the diocese has prepared is the high standard being proposed for men.

When a husband promises to love his wife as Christ loved the church and give himself up for her, he is declaring his intention to be a man of strength and self-control for her benefit and for the benefit of any children born to them. Such qualities, properly exercised in the spirit of self-sacrifice, enhance the feminine and personal qualities of his wife.

Each marriage and each era will work this out differently. It is in this context and this alone that the revised marriage service enables a woman to promise submission.

Her submission rises out of his submission to Christ.

It is a pity that the present discussion has been so overtly political. Instead of mocking or acting horrified, we should engage in a serious and respectful debate about marriage and about the responsibilities of the men and women who become husbands and wives. The Bible contains great wisdom on this fundamental relationship.

The rush to embrace libertarian and individualistic philosophy means that we miss some of the key relational elements of being human, elements which make for our wellbeing and happiness. It's time to rethink marriage from first principles. It really matters.

It is nice to see someone try to bring back to this topic the only opinion that matters. God's! The more we understand the good in God's plan and word the better we all would be. We need Jesus to return and bring God's Kingdom more than ever!

Commenter

JamesM

Date and time

August 29, 2012, 6:41AM

This is why the church is on the way out.

They don't think.

I'm just not convinced marriage is entirely natural. I think all of it is a bit forced. I think the nuclear family, or the industrial family, has had a poor outcome for children. A community has always been a better way to raise a family. And the church pretends to offer a community, while in reality, only offering bizarro rules.

The doctrine of the church has become irrelevant.

Commenter

sarajane

Location

melbourne

Date and time

August 29, 2012, 6:53AM

I’m no longer Christian but I agree with the basic premise made by Peter.I’ve been married twice and they failed because, typical of most women now, my wives put their own wishes above everything; including the welfare of their children.In all human societies throughout history, women submit to their husbands. In all ape societies females submit to males.The price for feminism is a lot of failed marriages, children from broken families, a lot of men who don’t trust women and a lot of women who don’t trust men.Peter is not a dinosaur; feminism is the unnatural belief we have now.

Commenter

rick

Location

Melbourne

Date and time

August 29, 2012, 7:00AM

JamesM - I quote

"The biblical teaching is that the promise made voluntarily by the bride to submit to her husband"

"Her ''submission'' is her voluntary acceptance of this pattern of living together"

There is no mention of "him" submitting

Commenter

Bruce of Berowra

Location

Sydney

Date and time

August 29, 2012, 7:06AM

Bruce, it is about Being Totally Committed to their wives and husbands, Totally Committed to The Loving and Caring that has No Ending, The Love that Never Dies, The Love that Never Fades Away.

Commenter

Acushla

Date and time

August 29, 2012, 7:07AM

Just after the request to get women to submit to their husbands. God says that men should to submit to Him - by loving his wife as Christ loves the Church ... to give his all life for her, to serve her with everything he has, to give her everything she requires, to support and strengthen her at all times. This is a harder deal on the man than on the woman. God says the weight is all on the man's shoulders. God gives just three verses to the women, then the next nine to the men.

Have a read through Ephesians 5:22 - 33 to get the bigger passage. You can view it here ... http://www.youversion.com/bible/eph.5.niv84

Commenter

Greg

Location

South Australia

Date and time

August 29, 2012, 7:08AM

Interseting how people are lining up to take a kick at Christianity but none of them are willing to criticise other religions which treat women as mere possessions.

Commenter

Dave

Location

Western Suburbs

Date and time

August 29, 2012, 7:14AM

@Dave - No, we're just as happy to have a shot at the others as well :)

Commenter

frank

Date and time

August 29, 2012, 7:25AM

@ rick

I don't even know you, and already I want a divorce.

Feminism is at the root of all evil???

Women didn't invent WW2 and the Holocaust, women didn't build the A bomb. 98% of rapists and pedophiles are men ...

Subscribe to IT Pro

Follow Us

Editor's Choice

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has bolstered Malcolm Turnbull's ministerial duties, handing him greater responsibility for e-government in a push to expand the use of a single digital identity for Australians.

Data

The new roof that spans Margaret Court arena does more than keep out the weather. Built into the gantries that surround the sliding ceiling are Wi-Fi antennas that beam web access to every ticket holder.